« Robin Hanson is blogging | Main | Assorted »
Which posts attract the most comments?
Some posts attract many more comments than others. Holding constant the general level of readership, I believe the following features predict higher numbers of comments:
1) If a post sits at the top of a page for a long time
2) If the post invokes a sense of moral outrage
3) If many readers feel they can bring facts or personal experience to bear on the question
4) If the post simply asks for comments or feedback
What do you all think?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 20, 2006 at 08:06 AM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
I feel manipulated.
Posted by: pj at Nov 20, 2006 8:17:21 AM
fascinating....
Posted by: Wii at Nov 20, 2006 8:53:57 AM
5) If the post discusses which posts attract the most comments.
Posted by: Pablo Stafforini at Nov 20, 2006 8:56:33 AM
The winner so far this month is "America and Europe, continued." I'm not sure which of the above above categories fits there. Maybe add a category for cross-blog discussions? Or perhaps cross-continent?
Posted by: Trieu Truong at Nov 20, 2006 9:13:31 AM
Actually, the correct answer is:
5) The post is about the Britney/K-Fed break-up.
Posted by: josh at Nov 20, 2006 9:19:38 AM
If the post is about dating/sex/relationships, it seems to get a lot of responses - not everyone feels qualified to comment on the more technical economics material, but everyone's got an opinion on male-female relations.
Posted by: AG at Nov 20, 2006 9:41:10 AM
Though I am falling into your carefully developed trap...
In other news, the sky is also blue!
Posted by: Mark at Nov 20, 2006 9:47:47 AM
At Midas Oracle (group blog on prediction markets):
#3 and #4 do not do the trick.
Comments come in number when (at least) a small portion of the readership *disagrees* strongly with the blog post author.
Posted by: Midass Oracle at Nov 20, 2006 9:55:29 AM
I think there is an element of the p-beauty game in this, because I only read the comments (a necessary prereq to commenting) if I think it is likely that *other* people have decided to comment or will be commenting in the next few hours, since you need a critical mass of comments to get an interesting thread going.
Posted by: kliuh at Nov 20, 2006 10:27:02 AM
Surely, it wouldn't be too hard to get some data on this to prove one way or another
Posted by: Tom at Nov 20, 2006 10:42:01 AM
Surely, it wouldn't be too hard to get some data on this to prove one way or another
Posted by: Tom at Nov 20, 2006 10:42:02 AM
7) Posts that occur between 11 AM and 4 PM on a non-holiday weekday, when most people are killing time at work.
Posted by: Xmas at Nov 20, 2006 11:07:53 AM
Um, not sure 1 thru 4 account why immigration entries elicit so many (and, if I may say, high variance, quality-wise) comments.
Posted by: JB at Nov 20, 2006 12:00:14 PM
#2. It's the rule that drives virtually all talk radio content as well as talking head TV shows like O'Reilly.
Most people are not moths. They are attracted to the heat, not the light.
Posted by: bk at Nov 20, 2006 12:03:30 PM
3)
Posted by: Carl Shulman at Nov 20, 2006 12:24:17 PM
What about if one offers something to those who comment?
Posted by: Luis Figueroa at Nov 20, 2006 12:31:20 PM
Posting deliberately flawed arguments in support of an unpopular position
is pretty much the best way to generate a firestorm of posts. Opponents leap in to
shred your argument, advocates respond by correcting flaws in the original. Of course
this would also be called 'trolling', and I'm not saying nor trying to insinuate
that you've done this - just seen enough of the dynamic elsewhere.
This also means that (even assuming no deliberate trolling) people who are willing to make
halfbaked arguments will generate a lot more comments than those who make really good
ones.
By way of evidence I'd mention Boudreaux's analogy-based argument against the
minimum wage. Unpopular position plus loosely-reasoned argument = 100+ comments...
Posted by: bbartlog at Nov 20, 2006 3:32:55 PM
I don't normally feel compelled to comment, but this post is outrageous! How anyone could just dump #2 in the same category with #'s 1, 3, and 4 is beyond me. Typically of a libertarian university professor. The offending post may have appeared on a Monday, but I suggest you examine what you are doing with your Sundays, Mr Cowen. Feh!
Posted by: Josh Wexler at Nov 20, 2006 4:05:04 PM
Datum: Kevin Drum, then Calpundit, got a large uptick in comments for a post on In-N-Out Burger compared to the previous posts on what were probably California politics.
Posted by: Nathan Sharfi at Nov 20, 2006 4:11:27 PM
I hope my name gets published in your paper on this!
Posted by: Richard Pointer at Nov 20, 2006 5:22:23 PM
Let's boot up the ole linear regression machine, Sherman!
Posted by: sean at Nov 20, 2006 6:44:31 PM
I would add
N+1) If the post contains a factual or logical error.
N+2) If the post doesn't anticipate the counterarguments of its readers (promoting governemnt interventions, for example, on an economics page).
N+3) If potential posters do not feel obliged to read previous posts before answering.
Posted by: anonymous at Nov 20, 2006 7:17:18 PM
Before I post a comment, I read the existing ones.
* If previous posters say more substantive things than I'm about to, then I decide not to post (so it was easy to post here).
* If a post already has a lot of comments, I don't even bother to read them.
Posted by: Paul N at Nov 20, 2006 7:35:51 PM
It was noted, amongst the copious comments to this post, that it helps if the topic is one unlikely to show up elsewhere. This concentrates the comments on the topic in one place. I should point out, however, that the post was on the topic of Steak n Shake, which gives it a commonality with the above-mentioned Kevin Drum post.
Posted by: triticale at Nov 20, 2006 7:46:07 PM
If the post is on a hot political topic. Probably related to #2. I remember entries on the minimum wage and immigration drawing many, many comments.
Posted by: Swimmy at Nov 20, 2006 8:15:54 PM
